Matt Wilcoxen

Tuesday, 24 April 2007

Last year, we voted for the worst liturgical invention (see here and here). Now, it’s time to nominate “the worst theological invention.” What do you think is the worst (or silliest, or most absurd, or most destructive) theological invention? Which theological idea causes you the most grief or embarrassment or hilarity?

Leave a comment with your nomination. I’ll choose five finalists from the list of nominations, and we’ll run a poll to find out which theological invention is really the worst of all. So don’t get “left behind” – get your nominations in now!

115 Comments:

I would say, the invention that says penal substitutionary atonement is an invention of Anselm and Calvin: Jeffrey John repeated this piece of ignorance recently in his Easter piece of straw-manning...

Not only didn't Anselm invent the doctrine of penal substitution, he didn't even deploy it (aut poena aut satisfactio). Calvin, of course, did, and if he too didn't invent it, he certainly refined it with his Latin view of criminal law. In any case, whoever the inventor, it's an unhappy invention. I should emphasis that I'm talking penal substitution, not substitution as such.

"Easter," writes Giles Fraser, "has its hawks and its doves." Penal substitution advocates are hawks. I coo. And it is interesting that atonement hawks are often war hawks too (and enthusiastic about capital punishment), particularly in the US. Which leads me to my nomination: Just War Theory. Meant to be a curtailment of war and not its justification, I know, it hasn't worked out that way, now has it? Abusus non tollit usum - but (another maxim) this is an exception that proves the rule.

Other nominations must surely include indulgences; papal infallibility; biblical inerrancy; the "horrible decree"; episcopacy as the esse of the church (particularly when it is combined with the manual transmission of grace); the priest as icon of Christ in his maleness; . . . the list is endless. And then there are others that require a lot of footnotes to be serviceable (like divine immutability), and others that are hard to make sense of (like Luther's doctrine of ubiquity). And then there are others that are too quickly dismissed by their opponents and perhaps deserve a further hearing (like transubstantiation).

There - something to piss off just about everyone, Catholic and Protestant! But if it doesn't make us too defensive, this should be a good, because humbling, exercise. The hardest thing about being a theologian - apart from self-deceit (which goes for everyone) - is not talking rubbish.

Not sure if this one counts but here's a quote I found in Tom Smail's book the Giving Gift:

"Footnote 15 - I here follow Karl Barth who, in line with some of the Greek Fathers, and much modern theology held that the human nature that Christ assumed was fallen humanity regenerated by the Spirit of Karl Barth..."

Tom Smail - The Giving Gift, 115.

So I guess my peeve doctrine is that of the quasi-divine nature of Karly B!

I'll nominate biblical inerrancy, along with its perfect Catholic counterpart: papal infallibility. These two doctrines encapsulate everything that was wrong with 19th-century reactionary conservatism.

"the Spirit of Karl Barth" -- is that an authentic quote, Jon? If so, it's absolutely priceless -- talk about a Freudian slip! Of course, reading contemporary books, one could be forgiven for thinking that some theologians have exchanged their old belief in biblical infallibility for a commitment to Barthian infallibility....

Well, I am a happy hawk then! Of course the Giles Fraser quote is a silly false dichotomy.

Just to swing us back from our mad rush to the left, what about the promise of so-called assured results from the proponents biblical criticism of both testaments in the last two centuries, on whom so much contemporary theological reasoning blithely depends, and against whom infallibility and inerrancy were reactions - and yet, at the beginning of the 21st century we can confidently say that we now know LESS than we thought we did about the writing of the Scriptures...

Ha - just about to publish my comment and someone's got there before me. Still, I'll keep original post below.

Apart from the Cardinal's axe wielding these are all fairly uncontroversial. Why don't we spice things up a bit then? So, how about Historical Criticism? Or rather, the invention that historical readings are the norm for reading scripture. Has this not served to obscure other ways of reading important to the western tradition and strangled contextual cries of a false western hegemony over theology?

Im just prodding really but its got to be worth a mention I reckon.

Matt

ps Ben, good to hear you met David Ford at Cambridge. He's my supervisor and I couldn't ask for a more helpful and kind guy.

I saw some nominations of Just War. I think you are being unfair. I propose the following exercise:

1 - Suppose next week Iran announces it has built nuclear weapons and is going try to wipe out the rest of the world;2 - Are others countries to stay put and do nothing?3 - If there had never been a Just War doctrine, wouldn't the questions concerning war be just outside the theological reflection? Wouldn't that be a kind of hiding your head in the sand?4 - Have you got a better approach to deal with the moral problems and dilemmas of war?

Sure, there has been abuse, but I don't think that is a problem of the doctrine itself.

"perspicuity of Scripture"-Like other nominations above I'm focusing on its abuses. In my old neck of the woods, fundamentalist Baptist, this doctrine is the excuse for people to glory in their ignorance.

- the doctrine of limited atonement taught I believe by some Calvinists, the idea that Christ only died for the elect. Personally I find the idea of election problematic enough anyway, but the idea that Christ's sacrifice is not "on behalf of all and for all" (as the Byzantine liturgy puts it) is beyond the pale.

- Christian zionism which has not only had horrendous political and ethical consequences but which directly contradicts the Christian convinction that there is "neither Jew nor Greek" and that "our God has no favourites".

- the new emphasis on nuptuality in certain Catholic theologians, notably the previous and present pope, which not only foregrounds sexual difference but inscribes it into the whole theological project imputing gender to God, ascribing theological signicficance to the maleness of Christ and viewing gender difference as ontological. As Fergus Kerr has recently argued (thanks for the reference to the book Ben!) this is a drastic departure from the tradition. It is also very problematic from a feminist perspective for, in the words of Gregory of Nazianzus, "what is unassumed is unhealed".

I'm with Anthony...my nomination is also big words...it is impossible to 'do' theology without the aid of dictionaries (how on earth did people manage before Google)for all those crazy theological words (half the time I'm looking at them thinking - 'you cannot be serious... thats really a word!!)

Aliocha--from a philosophical perspective, I think your questions about just war doctrine are pertinent. But from where I sit, the doctrine just isn't compatible with the teachings of Jesus or the overall direction of scripture's account of God's revelation to humans. So I just can't see it as a *genuine* theological truth. Instead, it strikes me (and there's nothing original in this assertion) as an expediency--a theological invention.

My nominees:1. That the Christian Church is founded on the person of Peter rather than his confession of faith.2. The phrase "we have to live into this together". Not sure what the big-word name for that concept is.3. The Purpose Driven anything (I guess Discipline Driven Life doesn't sell)4. Ancient/Future Church5. the post-modern movement

Lots of good ones here. Particularly fond of the Rapture.Some other offerings:

The seminary system - largely irrelevant, not necessarily helpful, too damn expensive. Ignore the people you love for Jesus!

Theologians - the post 2 before this one(?) is scary. "I love God but I don't love you, is a bit of a problem," but that may because of my epistemological commitments in a post-Kantian hypermodernist paradigm. :P

Theologians - the post 2 before this one(?) is scary. "I love God but I don't love you", is a bit of a problem. But that may because of my epistemological commitments in a post-Kantian hypermodernist paradigm. :P

I have to go with Halden that the worst is the concept of "Christendom," Constantinian church-state arrangements. This turning of the church into the chaplain of the empire (and later, the nation-state) is the source of many of the later poisons such as Just War Theory (replacing biblical pacifism), Christian nationalism, "Christian Zionism," America as "Redeemer Nation" (which followed a similar self-view by Britain and a similar self-view by apartheid-era South Africa), etc. I even think that the spiritualizing of salvation (reduced to heaven when you die), penal substitutionary atonement (in place of the older Christus Victor approach), "rapture," etc. can probably be traced back to the Christendom error. So, that's my first place pick.

How many of you actually study theology? I know Kim does, but most of these things such as the Virgin Birth, Heaven, Hell, and Predestination, and Salvation are important tenets of the faith. Before you suggest them as the worst theological innovation I suggest you back it up.

As for me and my house. The worst theological invention was rejected a long time ago and prevented many people from living hopeless lives. Arianism. The belief that Jesus was created, which would have made him a fallen being incapable of saving humanity. The best book on it is The Incarnation by Athanasius.

I think that the very worst theological invention comes from the learned Jesuit historian Jean Hardouin. Let me quote Owen Chadwick's From Bossuet to Newman:

"In a work of 1693 he hinted; in a work of 1709 he affirmed; in posthumous works of 1729 and 1733 he shouted - a bewildering but simple thesis. Apart from the scriptures - that is the Latin scriptures - and six classical authors, all the writers of antiquity, profane or ecclesiastical, were forged by a group of writers in the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries. This group of forgers he never defined or discussed, but always referred to them generically as 'the impious crew', 'maudite cabale'."

A deacon, by the grace of God, writes: "[F]rom where I sit, the [just war] doctrine just isn't compatible with the teachings of Jesus or the overall direction of scripture's account of God's revelation to humans."

Scripture, alas, is not infallible.

And in any case it was never intended to be a textbook for statecraft or politics.

Michael Jenson, I will hold Christendom accountable not just for the churches' support of American imperialism (and British imperialism before that), but for the Inquisition, witchburnings, for the German churches' silence in the face of the Holocaust and much else. Once one fuses church and state, one loses the prophetic voice of the church--it becomes the chaplain for empire. And more ills come from that than any other heresies I can name.

Since no representative of Eastern Christianity seems to be reading this blog, I will also say that the filoque is a strong runner-up in bad inventions.

Most recently….1. Attended a protestant service where at unpredictable points in the service someone in the back was blowing a SHOFAR (ram’s horn) borrowed from Jewish liturgy…..I think we should show respect of traditions and not indescriminately ‘borrow’ whatever we like….

2. Welcome those around you by introducing yourself and saying ‘Hello’ or whatever….

3. The invitation to ‘ad hoc’ witnessing of events or anything the person feels like talking about in some Protestant services…..

4. People yelling ‘AMEN’ or ‘PREACH IT BROTHER’

5. Charismatic ‘deliverance’ services (I don’t know if this even qualifies as a liturgical invention)

6. Liturgical dance (I know of a story of a Bishop, who was forced to watch such a display, and he told the parish priest ‘If she asks for your head, she’s got it..)

7. The rapture, and all other interpretations of the book of Revelations….the worst I head lately is that ‘The Beast is an idea of what Satan wants us to believe God is like’.

The Doctrine of Errancy, which basically states that the Bible is replete with errors, inaccuracies and things that ordinary people are doomed to misunderstand. Fortunately, if you have a Ph.D. in Theology and a modernist outlook, then you are competent to clear all this up and lead the sheep.

I think we should be careful nominating certain things for "worst theological idea" that are at least nominally in scripture. "Predestine" and alternate forms are found five times. Scripture says the "husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church." Now you may believe that headship is not applicable today, but it once was. And Paul clearly taught it. So, anything that Paul teaches should probably not be subsumed under "worst theological idea."

What a hodgepodge! Lots of liturgical inventions here and ethical theory like just war is really not a matter so much of theology as it is of political philosophy ... As for the Constantinian state, well, which one? That is, reading H. Rahner's Church and State has seriously complicated the way I look at the relations between Christ and Caesar.

I'm amused as ever at those "heresies" which are so-called because they violate modern dogma like egalitarianism and the denial of gender.

If we're going for worst theological invention, I think that Arianism has to be right up there. How many Christians live as if the Word became flesh and dwells among us? Like Constantine and his heirs, modern Christians have their Arian leanings (Monophysitism has no shortage of sympathizers today also).

Hi JBH -- I see your point here, but I think it's important to distinguish between the biblical texts and the doctrinal constructions that "use" those texts. After all, every bad theological idea is still "based on the Bible". In fact, the worst theologies (e.g. Arianism) and most bizarre theologies (e.g. rapture) are usually the most biblicist of all!

Without a doubt, the Rapture, followed closely by double predestination. And whoever came up with the phrase "The Rapture" was undoubtedly thinking ahead to how great a title it would be for a movie, starring Kirk Cameron...oh wait, didn't he already do that?

Augustine's assertion that time is created and God resides in a timeless eternity is either a profound insight or a disastrous invention. Either way, assenting to it has far-reaching implications for the way we conceive of God, Creation and ourselves. For one thing, it provides the context within which a whole bunch of theological positions are framed, including positions on predestination, determinism, free will, and the purpose of prayer. More fundamentally, it deepens the conceptual divide between the natural and the supernatural, and between body and spirit, since all that is natural or embodied is inherently temporal. It necessitates concluding that God is formless and static. That conclusion may well be correct, but perhaps it's worth noting that these are not characteristics of God that we would have deduced by contemplation of our dynamic, embodied Christ.

On the Christendom issue - it seems this term is used in very different ways. I do not think that it necessarily involves the 'fusing' of church and state, nor losing the prophetic voice of the church (though it can lead to these, but they are not essential to it). Isn't the heart of Christendom that the rulers of the nations submit to Christ? At the very least, we need some clarity over which Christendom we are discussing.

I had assumed that this was about Christian theology. But, even assuming a broader context, how can "Islam" be a theological invention? A particular Islamic doctrine perhaps - in which case, please specify - just like particular Christian, Buddhist, Jewish etc doctrines, but to nominate an entire religion as a theological invention just sounds like a dangerous clash of civilisations discourse.

Talk about covering your bases! Either the Bible ISN'T infallible (and so we needn't take literally Christ's message of peace) or, if the Bible IS infallible, taking Christ's teachings about peace and nonviolence illegitimately turns it into a "textbook of politics." Hmmm... Wonder if anybody else sees this as a false dichotomy... So I offer another candidate for worst theological inventions: false dichotomies.

All of the answers so far have given me a good chuckle, and a few almost make me cry. Best response so far would have to be "the penis of God" from Matthew. (Also the false distinction between egalitarianism and hierarchialism). My own 2c worth: separating the kingdom of God from 'the gospel'; discipleship from evanglism; good works from good news; spiriutality from creativity - dualism.

I would say penal substitution, because it changed the theiological mindset of the West, and prevented the healing of the great schism by making it more difficult for East and West to understand one another.

Someone mentioned "just war". I don't think so.

I don't accept the idea of the just war, or the thinking behind it (the same legalism that lies behind penal substitution), but kif it were applied, the world might be a better place, and three wars of the last decade would not have happened: the Nato attack on Yugoslavia, and the US-led attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. None of these met the criteria for a just war, and the world would have been better off without them.

So however theologically flawed the concept of the "just war" is, if it were applied, it would reduce war.

Ok First - these nominations are amazing - I've been scanning through the list saying "yes" to nearly all of them.

I don't think I've seen this one:

"inclusive" language

I think it is one of the more destructive inventions of recent times because not only does it create a false comfort zone (i.e. so people don't actually have to DO anything to BE inclusive) it often creates the most ridiculous, hysterically funny, even heretical images and concepts. In short - "inclusive" language is anything but - indeed I would argue it is very exclusive in the end.

I agree with Steve Hayes about the just war theory. I am uncertain about whether military force can ever be justified, but there are certainly situations in which it is less justified than others. I grew up in apartheid South Africa in which my white male contemporaries were conscripted into the army. In this context the just war theory provided a tool which helped some of them to see that the war that they were expected to fight was an unjust war. Ironically, those who were conscientious objectors based on just war principles paid a higher price (six years in prison) than those who were universal pacifists (six years community service).

It is now too late, but I realised this morning that I'd forgotten to mention the split between theology and spirituality that occured sometime towards the end of the Middle Ages, the details of which I'm insufficiently clued up on to comment on. I'm surprised that nobody else mentioned it.

Again, a delightful poll! Whoever it was got the idea that those early pastors\bishops were trying to invent a 'canon' for the scripture surely made the most terrible error theologically. Honestly, the Holy One's utterances once the canon was closed are not so trustworthy as those earlier remarks? Whuff! Whuff! Bow-wow!